Without DNA evidence they might never have been caught. So the convictions
last week of two savage killers might seem a powerful argument that Britain
should have a compulsory DNA database covering every person in the country.
The first strand in this gruesome double-helix involved Steve Wright, a quiet
man who led a deadly secret life. In 2003 Wright was convicted of stealing a
small sum of money while working as a hotel barman. His profile was
routinely added to the national DNA database.
Three years later, young prostitutes working in Ipswich began disappearing. On
December 2, 2006, the body of Gemma Adams, 25, was found in a stream; six
days later, the body of Tania Nicol, 19, was discovered, also in water. They
had been stripped, asphyxiated and dumped. A serial killer was on the loose.
Two days after that, Anneli Alderton, 24, was found in woodland, her body laid
out like a crucifix. This time police were able to recover significant
samples from the corpse, which were sent for analysis.
By December 17, forensic scientists had extracted a DNA profile. Less than an
hour later the national database, which is in Milton Keynes, found a match,
giving Suffolk police Wright’s name.
Last week Wright – whom locals had thought was an unassuming golf obsessive –
was convicted of five murders and sentenced to life in prison. If he had not
been identified by DNA, he might have killed even more. He had been
questioned by police twice in the course of their investigations, but had
not aroused suspicion.
The second case centred on Mark Dixie, a pub chef from Surrey. Dixie was
regarded by friends as an ordinary guy who enjoyed a party. He had managed
to keep hidden a history of violent sexual assaults and had emigrated to
Australia in 1993 before the collection of DNA became routine. He was not on
the national database when he returned to Britain.
In September 2005 Dixie was prowling the streets in the early hours when he
chanced upon Sally Anne Bowman, an 18-year-old aspiring model, returning
home. He pounced in the driveway of her house and stabbed her repeatedly,
inflicting wounds that one detective said were “off the scale”. Dixie
sexually defiled Bowman’s corpse.
Although police recovered DNA samples of the attacker, the database held no
match. For nine months the murder investigation made little progress. The
police, believing the killer lived locally, had a list of more than 22,000
suspects.
Then in June 2006, Dixie was arrested after a fight broke out among football
fans watching an England match in a pub.
The police were puzzled as to why he burst into tears as he was taken away.
Dixie knew what was coming. His DNA was taken and within days was matched to
the Bowman murder case. Dixie was last week sentenced to life.
The savagery of his crime spurred police to speak out. Detective
Superintendent Stu-art Cundy, who led the investigation, said: “I am all for
a DNA register [of everybody], set up with the appropriate safeguards. If we
had one, we could have identified Sally Anne’s murderer in 24 hours, which
means we could have protected everyone else out there.”
The use of DNA may seem like a “magic bullet” that can clear up cases quickly
and bring resolution to unsolved crimes.
Today we report that Scot-land Yard believes new forensic evidence, including
DNA samples, will enable the five original suspects to be tried again for
the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. New DNA analysis has also led
to charges being brought against Robert Napper, 41, for the murder of Rachel
Nickell on Wimbledon common, south London, in 1992.
But forensic experts and lawyers fear the use of DNA is already being pushed
to the limits. “We are riding for a fall,” said one.
Is there a case for a compulsory register of everybody’s DNA? Would the
benefits in solving crimes outweigh the invasion of privacy? Or are police
in danger of relying too much on DNA evidence that may not be as conclusive
as it seems? AT any time, several undetected homicidal psychopaths are
living freely in a country the size of Britain, according to psychologists.
“There will be a handful of serial killers at large right now,” said Keith
Ashcroft, a consultant forensic psychologist. “A small proportion of the
unexplained disappearances and unsolved murders will be down to serial
killers who have not been identified.”
They are often difficult to detect. Many appear normal, with their violence
secretly rooted in childhood problems. There may be no other element of
criminality, so no reason for such psychopaths to be on the national
database.
At present, it contains DNA profiles of 4.5m people, mostly those who have run
into trouble with the law. It is one of the largest DNA databases in the
world but still covers less than 10% of the population.
The police may now take and record the DNA of anyone who is arrested for a
recordable offence – whether they are subsequently found guilty or set free
without charge. About 80% of profiles on the database are male, 19% female
and 1% “unknown”. Thousands of children and about 40% of black men are on
it.
Every month about 3,500 matches are made between crime scene samples and DNA
profiles. In 2005 the database was used in 422 murder and manslaughter
trials, 645 rapes and 9,000 burglaries.
Supporters claim “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from
the system. Critics say the database is discriminatory and can put the
innocent at risk, especially since technical advances mean DNA can be
recovered from the tiniest samples.
The standard test for determining a DNA profile is called SGM Plus and is
regarded as highly reliable. It compares 10 sites on a piece of DNA, whereas
an earlier form of the test relied on only six matches.
The likelihood of two unrelated individuals showing the same full DNA profile
under the SGM Plus test is said to be one in a billion. Under the older
test, it was one in 50m.
It is not always that straightforward, however, because many samples provide
only a partial profile or match. The Home Office has admitted to The Sunday
Times that in more than 50,000 instances since 2001, DNA samples from crime
scenes have resulted in multiple matches on the national database.
In other words, partial profiles pointed the finger at more than one suspect,
sometimes many more. The police then have to rely on other evidence and,
provided that is the case, lawyers generally approve.
Mark George, a barrister who wrote a paper on DNA last month, said: “On
ordinary DNA testing, as far as I am aware, people are happy. [But] low-copy
number DNA is a whole different ball game. It’s controversial even within
the scientific community.” Low-copy number, or LCN, DNA is a technique that
creates a profile from tiny samples by replicating the DNA more times than
normal.
“In the conventional system, you need maybe 200 cells or 100 at a push to give
you the profile,” said Duncan Woods, a forensic scientist at Keith Borer
Consultants. “In theory, LCN can do it with just one cell, although in
reality you will probably need five or six.”
It is a system that has not been validated by scientific peer review, although
a report is due soon. It was LCN analysis that led Portuguese detectives to
believe Madeleine McCann had been in a hire car that was rented by her
parents after her disappearance.
In many countries, including the US, LCN evidence is not admissible in court.
Yet in Britain it is.
Orlando Pownall, a leading QC, also has his concerns. He pointed out that in
the Omagh bomb trial last December, LCN evidence produced a partial match
with a schoolboy from Nottingham who happened to be on the database.
“He would have been about six at the time of the bombing,” said Pownall,
so he was discounted. “But imagine if he had been a Republican living near
Omagh – he’d have been in the dock.”
The case failed, the judge delivered a denunciation of LCN and its use was
suspended pending a review. A few weeks later, however, it was reinstated.
“I’ve no doubt it could be valuable, but it’s got to be validated,” said
Pownall. “We are riding for a fall.”
One of the key problems, particularly with LCN evidence, is second-party
transmission: tiny samples of your DNA, for example, can easily be deposited
at a crime scene by someone else with whom you have been in contact. As
Professor Allan Jamieson, an expert on DNA testing, explained: “I shake your
hand. I touch the steering wheel of my car. The car is later involved in a
crime – and they find your DNA. It’s a very real problem.” THE risk of the
innocent being accused is compounded by what might be called the “CSI
effect”, after the popular tele-vision drama series. Its main crime scene
investigator is fond of warning his colleagues: “Follow the evidence, it
never lies.”
Some investigators and juries are so convinced DNA evidence is infallible that
absurd situations can arise.
Last year detectives reinvestigating a case of rape got a DNA profile from a
strand of hair caught in a ring worn by the victim. The DNA identified Mark
Minick, who was charged with the rape.
Yet when the case arrived in court, it fell apart. Minick is white, small and
slim – while the victim had described her attacker as black, large and tall.
She is thought to have picked up Minick’s hair by chance from a blanket in
the hospital where he had worked.
Lawyers raise other concerns, too. It is possible for an innocent person’s DNA
to be planted at a crime scene, either to mislead police or to incriminate
an enemy of the real perpetrator.
Cost is another factor. The police are pouring resources into DNA and
forensics: at one point in the Wright case, 250 scientists were working on
the investigation. Yet defence lawyers complain they sometimes struggle to
get funding for their own tests – and that occasionally there is no crime
scene material left for them to check once prosecution tests have been done.
Yesterday Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister, said a national DNA database
was not a “silver bullet” and rejected calls for a mandatory one.
Even the police are unsure. Tony Lake, chief constable of Lincolnshire and
chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ forensics panel, said:
“I don’t doubt we would solve more crime if everyone was on the DNA
database, but I don’t know exactly how much more.
“I don’t think people are ready for the ethical consequences of having a
universal DNA database. DNA is hugely important and we have masses of
success with it, but it is only one tool in the box.”
Concerns over the national database’s expansion will now be tested in court.
Next week two people charged with offences but never convicted will ask the
European Court of Human Rights to remove them from the database. If they
succeed, nearly 15% of records will have to be removed.
If the current rules are upheld, the database will continue growing rapidly.
Since 2001 about 490,000 subjects’ samples have been added each year; in
2005-6, more than 715,000 samples were added.
Mandatory or not, the question of how DNA is used and what safeguards are
necessary will not go away.
The pros and cons of using DNA evidence
The strengths
New techniques have improved the statistical certainties of DNA tests from
about one in 50m to one in a billion
DNA profiles can now be obtained from samples that are either very small or
many years old
The increasing number of people on the national DNA database means that
“familial DNA profiling” can be used to catch the perpetrators of unsolved
cases. James Lloyd, for example, was convicted of raping four women 20 years
after he committed the crimes. His sister’s DNA was taken after she was
stopped for a motoring offence and was found to be similar to DNA from samples of semen from his victims.
The weaknesses
The connection between the presence of DNA and guilt is not straightforward.
Person A’s skin cells can be transferred to Person B - by shaking hands, for
example - and then deposited at a site that Person A has never visited.
Experts also point out that some people shed skin cells more prolifically
than others
Many crime scene samples contain a mixture of different people’s DNA
Experts also warn that false DNA traces, such as cigarette butts taken from a
bar, could be planted at crime scenes to mislead police
I think it is a risiculous idea for a compulsory database as it totally deflaes the whole innocnet until proven guilty routine and violates our freedom of expression. it is already bad enough that the current database is like a referee who thinks every foul is a booking.
Nathan, Thame, Oxon
Vote,,,, or Emigrate
Richard, Bucharest,
Yes a bigger data base. Its a sad thing but the ferals are getting more feral as time passes. The common folk will need watching more if they are not going to engage christian revival and become a quieter class of people.
Graeme Gibson, Sydney, Australia
Yes I do think Britain shoud have a compulsory DNA database. It would save millions of pounds and you would only need to be worried if your guilty of some crime.
Jac, Hartlepool,
It is now, 2030, we have had a massive increase in the amounts of information stored by the government on us: DNA was only the beginning. Cameras and microphones in every room of every house and public place were also found to be very useful.
Unfortunately, the government has become so repressive that we are not allowed to say anything to criticise it or its policies. Even worse, some people, having become so oppressed, have tried to revolt, but the government's grip on society is too strong. Nevertheless, it is increasingly paranoid and ruthless. Not only will anyone who rebels be executed, but also all their immediate family -- as conveniently identified and stored on the DNA database -- and, to be thorough, anyone else who has a similar DNA profile.
Lee, London,
Yes, your DNA belongs to you - but what if that DNA was the best way to ensure that the person who had sexually assaulted and murdered your WIFE / your DAUGHTER / your MOTHER received punishement, and wasn't free to do it to another person?
Hazel, Bedford, UK
I'm sick of this rubbish. I'm a nice law-abiding middle class person just getting on with my life and working hard. I'm not a criminal and I wish the police and government would just leave people like me alone and get out of my life. The Labour government have their priorities all wrong - they should be encouraging people to aspire, treating their employers (ie US HARD-WORKING TAX-PAYERS) with respect and dignity instead of viewing us all as potential criminals. So no, I refuse to allow my DNA to be put on a database because I've done nothing wrong so it wouldn't help them anyway.
Adam, Hastings, UK
I am just very afraid of the implications of false accusation that could arise by the transference of someones DNA to a crime scene, as is mentioned in this article.
I suppose it is no greater a risk than someone depositing any article belonging to you at a crime scene to incriminate you, but nevertheless, it is a worrying thought.
I do not mind my DNA being on a database.
As long as it is established that someones DNA could be found somewhere despite them not being implicated.
As that appears to be being taken into consideration, then I think it is a very good idea, if i will catch the kind of criminals that we have seen of late.
clare, St Ives, uk
the government have rejected the call for a compulsory database because they'd all be on on it as well, obviously. It may uncover a few too many skeletons for their peace of mind. Some minor, some major.
Of course we need a national database, it's well worth it for the deterrent value alone. Try living the rest of your life with the unsolved vicious murder of a child & then see how loudly you scream 'civil liberties'.
Gina, Brighton,
I don't know why government ministers are reluctant to insist that everyone should go on a DNA database, when they are so keen on CCTV video surveillance and bugging people and their emails. Come to that, I wonder why they do not insist that everyone should have an RFID chip implanted like cats and dogs so they could link bugged speech to IDs. Think of all the new offences they could dream up and fine people for and all the money they could rake in?
Dr Tom Shelley, Chatham, UK
Just look at your other report in todays paper -- The British tax authorities have paid an informant for Liechtenstein’s bank details of scores of wealthy Britons --
If our government bribes people to steal foreign databases, why shouldn't other governments steal from ours??
m wood, somerset, uk
A few tragic murder cases cannot justify the tragedy of a free nation losing yet more of its liberty.
No government, particularly New Labour, can be trusted with such Big Brother technology.
RB, Aberdeen,
A note to the ill informed. All Police Officers have already given their DNA. Too many liberals spoils the country!!
Mark, Derby, UK
No, we shouldn't. DNA is touted as yet another 'magic cure' for all the ills of the world. It seems we're always just one infringement on our liberties away from a perfect world. More police powers: ID cards: Stop & search! Metal detectors in schools! More checks at airports! Checks at railway stations & shoppinf centres! A national database of everybody & everything they do! More CCTV! Auto number Plate recognition! Satelite tracking!
Brave new world...
Ross Bennett, Monk Fryston,
DNA for crime purposes, no problem at all with that. Trouble is if insurance companies get ahold of the info, it could take many people out of insurance, because of the likelyhood of being able to say certain people are more likely to die early of fall to certain illneses, family history etc. Only police should be able to see the data!
RayB, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Life insurance companies already take into account health background and family history to calculate the probability of medical problems and life expectancy and DNA is no more unfare than any other parameters. They already charge higher rates is they determine that you have the XY chromosones rarther than XX.
Technology is being developed to make DNA readers that will only take minuites, so DNA will become a common form of proving ID. Everyone should be tested on entering the country at birth or from abroad.
DNA has already freed many people previously "proven" guilty. 14 on Death Row in the US. It will be welcomed by the "usual suspects" hounded by the police for no reason.
quentin, Reading, UK
i think its a great idea,for those who say it's an "invasion of privacy" what a load of rubbish, how can that possibly compare to sending these murderers, rapists and child abusers to jail where they belong, im sure if one of your children/parents or family member was murdered or raped and they had the offenders DNA but they was not on a database, you would soon change your mind! you have to think of the families of people who are living through situations where this would help, it will surely also make people think twice on offending in the first place and definately save lives, if the english citizens can not see this then the country has surely gone mad.
j fraser, doncaster, south yorkshire
This is just part of the infra-structure the State needs to establish total control over the population. It will start by social engineering ("Sorry Sir, our database says this school place should go to someone else because... insert latest tendy criteria..."), then the outlawing of dessent ("That comment constitute ...insert racial / religious / other ... incitement to hatred - please come with us"), and finally the establishment of a permanent, corrupt, un-challengable elite. What do the innocent have to fear? An awful lot.
EdwardK, London,
This country terrifies me. People think that ID cards are acceptable. Now they think that a *compulsory* DNA database is acceptable on the off-chance that it might catch a few burglars! The question of human rights comes into play when I ask the question 'what if I don't want to be on the database, even though I am a law-abiding citizen?' - if it is compulsory it will be an offence not to comply. Where is the justice in that?
We were told that CCTV would reduce crime, and yet violent crime has only increased since their popularisation, all despite the fact that we are now the most watched populace on earth. When one calmly reflects, draconian measures rarely eradicate the mischief which precipitated them.
Oh Crime! What liberties are eroded in thy name!
S Vince, Beaconsfield, Bucks
Whilst this would be worthwhile in aiding the police in there work, I do not trust the security of the authourities to keep our most important physical data safe. Just look at the recent loss of many citizens benefit details
A Midson, Peterborough, UK
People, remember, the state serves YOU, not vice versa...
The information in YOUR DNA belongs to YOU and no-one else.
Ged Hurst, Paris, France
I think it's absolutely sensible to have a DNA database. We can see the advantages with the current cases. The disadvantages of DNA fingerprinting are well known, and DNA data should (and would!) only be included as part of the evidence in a case, alongside other evidence; it should not be used to build an entire case.
As for Human Rights, I don't see that the database infringes a persons right to privacy. As is mentioned in the above article, the DNA matching process looks at 10 sites - not the entire sequence (which would take a long time - the same time it took for the human genome project?). Therefore, insurance companies, etc, would not be able to pay for genetic information on a person, simply because that information would not be available. Why do we, as a nation, mistrust the central services so much? - Occasionally they make mistakes, but my opinion is that we live in one of the most politically benevolent nations in the world, and should be proud of that.
David Nugent, Derby, England
Comments like those made by S Davies worry me a great deal. A very large proportion of Britons appear to be taking on the obedient mindset of Eastern Europeans of the Cold War era. Cowardice and appeasement is one unfortunate side of the British character, witness HMS Cornwall.
The attitude of the police in calling for a national dna database worries me even further.
P Taylor, Neath, UK
Absolutely not-The current system has already been called into disrepute-the Nottingham School boy incident cost the omagh bombing victims and their famalies further grief as the case against the accussed collasped. There are many other such incidents-of partial match DNA, specifically in relation to LCN that prove its evidentary value is flawed. The analysis of LCN is open to such interpertation, that rarely scientists can or will agree.
The two high profile cases, of this week show the very obvious merits and advantages of the use of DNA database. But I feel the case before the European Court this week has its merits too, there must be very strict and distinct laws governing the collection/use of DNA from suspects-people routinely taken in for questioning, where there may never be a case/charge brought against them should not have DNA taken used/stored-The risks of abuse of the system is all too probable.
DNA is an investigative tool. It is not the investigation proper.
ann, mayo, Ireland
Handing over personal data in whatever form, to people you don't know or trust, is at best, risky. But ,of course, the police are completely honest and beyond reproach, aren't they? Just like the government.
So there is no chance of an unscrupulous life insurance company attempting to get its hands on information about individuals' life expectancy, or an employer slipping a few quid to an official in exchange for whatever information X's DNA might provide.
Phwar! No chance!
Brian Douglas, Heysham, Lancs. UK
I think the ACPO should take the lead and give DNA samples from all of their members, and then encourage all UK police forces to do the same. Always best to set a good example after all.
Philip, Margate,
No. DNA profiling is just another branch of statistics. Numbers in a computer which can be corrupted and altered.
Peter, Manchester, England
What comes next? DNA profiling before marriage, or having children, to eliminate genetic diseases - after all, we all want healthy children, don't we? No doubt, in our best interests the government could withdraw benefits and health care to those who don't as an incentive.
S Thornton, Durham,
I really don't see the problem with doing it, thousands of crimes will stand a real chance of being solved instantly the moment this goes live.
The only people that should be worried are the rapists and murders currently being held at large by this country's chattering classes, the same people then complaining about crime and civil disorder.
Ed, Leeds,
This is crazy! London already has the largest proliferation of video cameras and CCTV than any other city in the world. Now everyone's DNA will be on file? People complain about wiretapping in America and Terrorists in Guantanamo, but the when you look at London and Britain in general, they have more erosion of privacy and freedoms than people realize, because they're under the guise of 'public safety'. Stop sleeping people! Wake up! 1984 was not meant to be a reality! It was a warning!
Have your say before it's too late!
Dave, London, UK
Are you kidding me!!!! this is disgusting, I feel sick. What type of world are we living in.
I can only say i knew this was comming. I'm so mad right now it's unbeliverble. I'll never give my DNA for no reason at all, I am a free law abiding citazen and will not be cattled like sheep into get my mouth twabed.
Next they'll be wanting it to be implanted with a RFID chip.
Shocking, totally shocking. I'd say the goverment where out of touch but i'm afraid the agenda is much more sinistar than that.
"Police state" here we come. Guity till proven inocent!
Andy, England, North, Teeside
Absolutely yes - those who have no problem with the law are happy to provide DNA. Make it compulsory at age 16 in school, it would make the youth think again about committing petty crime which leads to much bigger things.
S Davies, salisbury, wilts